Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses  (Read 93680 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9011



WWW
« Reply #140 on: June 09, 2013, 11:59:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Again, after seven pages and several repeated requests for a proof of that "fluff and nonsense," none is given.

That's ridiculous, come on. You can do better than that. Rhossydd and I and hjulenissen provided numerous examples of which apparently you and Alan wish to ignore.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5798


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #141 on: June 09, 2013, 12:56:09 PM »
ReplyReply

That's ridiculous, come on. You can do better than that...

Ok, then, let me try.

IF I wanted to dive deep into the intricacies of color management (CM), I would certainly choose to listen to Andrew Rodney (a.k.a digitaldog), Norman Koren, Jeff Schewe and the likes. Heck, I would even consider paying $400/h for such advice (not sure if the above mentioned guys charge that, but I've seen some CM experts do). I would also consider buying the latest and greatest of multi $K hardware and software, monitors, colorimeters, profiling devices, order custom-made profiles, make paper mills happy by using tons of expensive printing paper in the process of learning, go bold by tearing my hair every time my $K printer clogs, a new printer driver does not work any more with my setup, or my new computer's OS does not play well with my old drivers, etc. etc, etc. And just when I thought I learned enough for practical purposes, there would be a new version of something, and here we go again... At some point you realize you sold your soul to the CM devil, boarded a ship that only sails forward, there is no disembarking and no end of journey in sight.

Or,

I could have listened to KR, in which case I would have no CM issues at all. I could move on with my life, and concentrate on what I like the most, taking photographs, as opposed to measurbating in front of a computer all day long. I would set my camera to sRGB and jpeg, process my files minimally, if at all, upload them to the web which displays them as sRGB anyway, send them to labs that in mostly insist on sRGB. Good enough is good enough for me.  See? No woman (CM), no cry. Smiley


P.S. Unfortunately (or fortunately), I am already on that ship.

P.P.S. I use "you" and "I" in a rhetorical sense
« Last Edit: June 09, 2013, 01:01:13 PM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9011



WWW
« Reply #142 on: June 09, 2013, 01:01:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I could have listened to KR, in which case I would have no CM issues at all.

Wrong again. Unless you really do believe that ignorance is bliss. You'd also would believe the factually incorrect writings about color management Ken has stated.

He didn't say "Ignore all color management and just use sRGB", there's plenty of text in his piece that's flat out incorrect. No matter how you try to distill it, that's still the case. Only someone who understands the concepts of color management can skim the truth from the fiction but someone that doesn't know lumps everything he said as being correct. Much of what he wrote isn't correct.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5798


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #143 on: June 09, 2013, 01:14:46 PM »
ReplyReply

... He didn't say "Ignore all color management and just use sRGB"...

Here is what he said (emphasis mine):

Quote
sRGB is the world's default color space. Use it and everything looks great everywhere, all the time.

Adobe RGB should never be used unless you really know what you're doing and do all your printing yourself. If you really know what you're doing and working in publishing, go right ahead and use it. If you have to ask, don't even try it.

If you're one of the few a full-time career professional photographers left standing and shoot for print, by all means shoot Adobe RGB, but if you're a very serious amateur, beware.

Sound pretty reasonable to me.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9011



WWW
« Reply #144 on: June 09, 2013, 01:28:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is what he said (emphasis mine):
Sound pretty reasonable to me.
Then you need to study color management a tad more.

It isn't the worlds default color space. I don't know there is such a thing. And it can look awful in many situations. Adobe RGB can be used without issue in many of the same situations (send me a tagged document in AdobeRGB, I'll have no issues printing it). The person handing to me doesn't have to know squat to do so. If you have to ask, you should get a good answer, not some dumbed down dribble. If you are a serious amateur, you're serious and not some moron who can't understand the proper use of Adobe RGB (1998). You're probably way, way too serious to be reading Ken's site. The sentence should read" if you're a very stupid amateur who has no desire to use your brain to understand about color and want to ignore how to produce a better quality image, keep reading this article".

But you cherry picked then missed even more of the egregious nonsense he wrote about color spaces which seems typical of KR's defenders.

Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5798


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #145 on: June 09, 2013, 01:37:07 PM »
ReplyReply

... send me a tagged document in AdobeRGB, I'll have no issues printing it...

Andrew, I am sure YOU would not have issues.

However, here is my experience: Canon at some point ran a campaign in which you send them a file and they send you back an 8x10 print on the printer they were promoting. They even made a point that you can send them either Adobe RGB or sRGB. Well, guess what? I took them at their word and sent them Adobe RGB. What I got back was undersaturated print. Had I sent them sRGB, no problem.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9011



WWW
« Reply #146 on: June 09, 2013, 01:57:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Look, the article is filled with complete nonsense and if you wish to go through them piece by piece, let's do so. I've 'cherry picked' a few sentences which anyone who has a clue about color management (and I figured you did), could point out is factually wrong including:

Quote
Adobe RGB is irrelevant for real photography
What is real photography?

Quote
Using Adobe RGB is one of the leading causes of colors not matching between monitor and print.
Nonsense. Leading cause? Let's not even go into display calibration, in Ken's mind, sRGB doesn't require it.

Quote
Adobe RGB should never be used unless you really know what you're doing and do all your printing yourself.
So again, handing off Adobe RGB to someone else doesn’t count, silly.

Quote
Adobe RGB requires special software and painstaking workflow not to screw it up. Make one mistake anyplace and you get dull colors, or worse. You cannot use Adobe RGB on the internet or for email or conventional photo lab printing. If you do, the colors are duller.
Sure, blame Adobe RGB and not the non color managed app. You do realize that sRGB outside an ICC aware app has no guarantee of being seen correctly?

Quote
sRGB is the world standard for digital images, printing and the Internet.
Pure nonsense. Certainly for print (and I'm counting ALL possible print work).

Quote
Use sRGB and you'll get great, accurate colors everywhere all the time.
Again not true. No further comment necessary it's such a silly statement painted with such a wide brush.

Quote
sRGB uses ITU BT Rec. 709 primaries and a gamma of 2.2, same as most kinds of HDTV.
For the guy who 'invented some color invention' I couldn't find reference to, he's off a bit (Rec 709 doesn't use the same "gamma" encoding).

Quote
Adobe RGB squeezes colors into a smaller range (makes them duller) before recording them to your file.
Squeezes color thus they are duller? Come on.

Quote
If you have the right software to re-expand the colors…
Re-expand the colors?

Quote
Web browsers don't have, and print labs rarely have, the right software to read Adobe RGB
My web browser does, my labs do. Everything exported from Aperture is Adobe RGB (1998) as one example.

Quote
Adobe RGB may be able to represent a slightly larger range of colors, but no screen or print material I've used can show this broader range…
Slightly larger range of colors? According to ColorThink, Adobe RGB has a gamut volume of 1,207,502 while sRGB has a gamut volume of 832,478. No screen or print can show it? You are actually buying that?

Quote
Worse, if you're the sort of vacuum-operating geek who wants to shoot Adobe RGB because you read about it in a magazine article, did you realize that because the colors are compressed into a smaller range that there is more chroma quantization noise when the file is opened again?
Not even worth a comment!

Quote
Keeping people lost and confused sells more magazines and more new equipment, which supports magazine advertising. That's why you see so many articles on Adobe RGB elsewhere.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black (confuse then ask for money). Is this guy serious? No, some just don't get his sense of humor. If you believe that, I have ocean front properly to sell you in New Mexico.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5798


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #147 on: June 09, 2013, 02:37:59 PM »
ReplyReply

... if you wish to go through them piece by piece, let's do so...

Ha! But that's exactly what my fictitious character (the one I play devil's advocate for) is not interested in doing. I do not want to be sucked into CM minutia, parse every sentence and debate Rec. 709. I'd leave that to experts and geeks. All I need to know is that if I stick to sRGB I can forget about all that.

As for dumbing down, even our government feels it is necessary "for our own good" - remember the justification for Irag war and subsequent admission it was dumbed down, twisted, etc., but "the intention was noble."

That's why I agree with Ken: if you do not know what you are doing, stick with sRGB. If you want to learn so that you know what you are doing (and not everyone feels the need to do so), by all means follow Andrew Rodney at al.

When my friends ask me what camera to buy, I do not tell them get Cambo RC400 series, Schneider glass and IQ280 back. I tell them: "Stick to your iPhone." I am sure that you can prove me wrong, piece by piece, as to how the Cambo is so much better than iPhone, though. Smiley
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9011



WWW
« Reply #148 on: June 09, 2013, 02:59:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Ha! But that's exactly what my fictitious character (the one I play devil's advocate for) is not interested in doing. I do not want to be sucked into CM minutia, parse every sentence and debate Rec. 709. I'd leave that to experts and geeks. All I need to know is that if I stick to sRGB I can forget about all that.
Which would be wrong. You can ignore the facts. You can ignore the incorrect statements he's made. You can ignore that sticking with sRGB is all you need to know. You can subscribe to ignorance is bliss. I thought you were a bit smarter than that but I guess I was wrong.

Ken has made statements that are incorrect and if you want to accept that Rec 709 and sRGB are the same, or ignore it because it's over your head, that doesn't change the facts a lick.

What you really should write is this: I do not want to be sucked into CM minutia, parse every sentence and debate Rec. 709. because I don't want to be told I'm wrong.

Quote
As for dumbing down, even our government feels it is necessary "for our own good" - remember the justification for Irag war and subsequent admission it was dumbed down, twisted, etc., but "the intention was noble."
And now you subscribe to two wrongs do make a right. You can post sites that equally have incorrect info about color management till the cows come home, that doesn’t make what they or Ken writes correct (because they are not). You can believe the earth is 6000 years old and we used to romp around with dinosaurs. You can believe the earth is flat. All you've done then is convince me and other's you're a thinking processes are moronic.

Quote
When my friends ask me what camera to buy, I do not tell them get Cambo RC400 series, Schneider glass and IQ280 back. I tell them: "Stick to your iPhone." I am sure that you can prove me wrong, piece by piece, as to how the Cambo is so much better than iPhone, though. Smiley
You again missed the point which I have to assume is on purpose. IF the argument is, the Cambo and iPhone both create an image, fine. If you want to tell your friends the iPhone and Cambo produce the same image size, quality and do the same functionality, you're an idiot and I pity any friend that would take you seriously. As I said, you're welcome to your own opinions as is Ken. Neither of you are welcome to your own facts, especially when the facts prove you are flat out wrong and can be proven to be wrong. How can any intelligent person dismiss facts? How can lazy, dumb people ignore them? They can't help themselves. BIG difference!
« Last Edit: June 09, 2013, 03:00:40 PM by digitaldog » Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1917


WWW
« Reply #149 on: June 09, 2013, 03:06:49 PM »
ReplyReply

That's why I agree with Ken: if you do not know what you are doing, stick with sRGB. If you want to learn so that you know what you are doing (and not everyone feels the need to do so), by all means follow Andrew Rodney at al.
But that's not what he says. It's dumb unqualified instruction.
Relying on sRGB JPG acquisition throws away a lot of valuable data that one day the photographer may come to regret.
If you want to aim for mediocrity KR will help you get there.

Quote
When my friends ask me what camera to buy, I do not tell them get Cambo RC400 series, Schneider glass and IQ280 back. I tell them: "Stick to your iPhone." I am sure that you can prove me wrong, piece by piece, as to how the Cambo is so much better than iPhone, though. Smiley
If someone asks what camera to buy, telling them to buy a phone is pretty poor advice. If they're aspirational enough to want a camera it doesn't have to be a professional bitsa, just a sensible P&S would be far better starting point.
Logged
Colorado David
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 588



« Reply #150 on: June 09, 2013, 03:09:31 PM »
ReplyReply

http://xkcd.com/386/
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9011



WWW
« Reply #151 on: June 09, 2013, 03:09:44 PM »
ReplyReply

In case the puff piece on sRGB  isn't enough, here's more:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/color-management/is-for-wimps.htm

Quote
Color profiles and color spaces are for dweebs. You don't need them.

No photographer needs to do color management manually any more. Color management is already built into everything by designers who know what they're doing.

Mess with profiles and color spaces and you'll probably get bad results. Leave it all alone, and you'll get great results.

Ditto for people still wasting their time with inkjet printers, which went obsolete back in 2004.

I keep telling everyone to forget profiles, AdobeRGB and inkjets and just use defaults and any discount store for prints.

Yes, my monitor is calibrated, but my monitor has nothing to do with this.

Prints and files have no right to match this well.

Shoot at defaults: Use JPG. Most printers, like the Agfa and Fuji, convert any other file formats to JPGs as they are ingested for moving around and queuing for print. These machines print hundreds of files at a time, so they can't let themselves get clogged up by boneheads who use huge TIFF and BMP files.

Don't waste any time calibrating anything; today's printers, cameras and scanners are calibrated well enough out-of-the-box.

It keeps going with more nonsense but I barfed on my keyboard at this point and could not go on. Got to love the stuff about Ink Jet prints and Huge TIFF's and BMP files. IF my intent were to write something about color management and imaging that was 180 degree's from fact, I couldn’t come up with anything more nonsensical than the above. RK is the Steven King of imaging science fiction and as scary!
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5798


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #152 on: June 09, 2013, 03:16:26 PM »
ReplyReply

... What you really should write is this: I do not want to be sucked into CM minutia, parse every sentence and debate Rec. 709. because I don't want to be told I'm wrong.

So, if I say "I do not want to be sucked into rocket science minutia..." the only explanation you could come up with is that "I don't want to be told I'm wrong"? There is no possibility that I am simply not interested in rocket science? That I could not care less if I am right or wrong, because I could not care less about rocket science?

Quote
... IF the argument is, the Cambo and iPhone both create an image, fine. If you want to tell your friends the iPhone and Cambo produce the same image size, quality and do the same functionality, you're an idiot and I pity any friend that would take you seriously...

I never said that. I said, that given I know my friends, what they shoot, and how much they know (and CARE) about photography, where 99.9% their photographs end up (Facebook), that their phone is good enough for them. That going for any more serious camera, even p&s, let alone Cambo at al, would be a serious overkill and create much more trouble for them than it is worth.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5798


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #153 on: June 09, 2013, 03:22:31 PM »
ReplyReply

... Relying on sRGB JPG acquisition throws away a lot of valuable data that one day the photographer may come to regret.

Once again, you are making an assumption that every photographer's wet dream is to become a measurbator.

Quote
... If someone asks what camera to buy, telling them to buy a phone is pretty poor advice. If they're aspirational enough to want a camera it doesn't have to be a professional bitsa, just a sensible P&S would be far better starting point.

Couple of years ago, I would have agreed. And at that time, I WAS recommending p&s to my friends. But just check the world-wide statistics: p&s sales are nose diving. Care to guess why? Because for most normal people, and most of their needs, today's iPhones are GOOD ENOUGH. Heck, they are even good enough for news organizations, as of lately.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1917


WWW
« Reply #154 on: June 09, 2013, 03:25:41 PM »
ReplyReply

So, if I say "I do not want to be sucked into rocket science minutia..."
The important thing to realise  here is that CM, or shooting with RAW, isn't a case of 'ignore it' or 'get a degree in rocket science'.
Like most things there's a middle way where making the right settings can make a significant difference to the quality of results without having to get over involved in the science by just knowing enough to make informed decisions.
Ken just shouts "Don't care, give me cash"
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5798


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #155 on: June 09, 2013, 03:41:28 PM »
ReplyReply

The important thing to realise  here is that CM, or shooting with RAW, isn't a case of 'ignore it' or 'get a degree in rocket science'.
Like most things there's a middle way where making the right settings can make a significant difference to the quality of results without having to get over involved in the science by just knowing enough to make informed decisions...

And this is where we fundamentally disagree.

I am sorry, but in my view, there is no middle way. You can't just choose "the right settings" that will, by itself result in better quality. If you choose RAW setting on your camera, you are initially going to end up with a WORSE initial result than with jpeg. Only when you embark on processing that RAW you might end up with something better (which, again, presupposes that you care about that difference and that you know what you are doing). However, to do so, you really, really need to know what you are doing. And for that, you need to dive deep into the intricacies of Lightroom, Camera RAW, Photoshop, CM, attend seminars, read books (where I certainly highly recommend Andrew Rodney, Jeff Schewe at al), attend workshops, and perhaps years later you might say you are beginning to get an idea that one day you might know what you are doing. If you do not believe me, just look at some post-processing monstrosities newbies post in our Critique forum.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9011



WWW
« Reply #156 on: June 09, 2013, 04:05:54 PM »
ReplyReply

So, if I say "I do not want to be sucked into rocket science minutia..." the only explanation you could come up with is that "I don't want to be told I'm wrong"?
Exactly! The so called minutia is still fact based. You can ignore the facts, doesn't change them. What Ken writes is factually wrong. Saying it's minutia doesn't make it right. This topic is not about whether what he writes is minutia or super important to a photographer. The topic is about his writings which very often are flat out wrong.

You can say the Holocaust is in your opinion minutia. You can say the Holocaust didn't happen. Not caring about history or considering it minutia is one thing. Saying the history didn't happen is flat out wrong. See the difference? Facts don't stop being facts because you or Ken's readers feel it's not worth grasping. There's no excuse for dismissing the Holocaust because you find it inconsequential and worse, defending someone who would write it didn't happen! 

Quote
I said, that given I know my friends, what they shoot, and how much they know (and CARE) about photography, where 99.9% their photographs end up (Facebook), that their phone is good enough for them.
I have no issue with that! That's your opinion. I have an issue if you tell your friends the iPhone and the Cambo are the same, they are not. You simply don't seem to be able to separate the differences in opinions that don't need any facts versus telling your friends things that are just incorrect. If Ken wants to write that the Canon is better than the Nikon and not provide any reasons, I'll take that as an opinion and based on who wrote it, file it where it belongs. If Ken writes that a Canon is better than a Nikon because of the location of the assembly plant, or that those people who build them are closer to god, or that only it's a better system based on sorting camera makers names alphabetically, I'm going to call him out on that. It's nonsense.

Quote
Once again, you are making an assumption that every photographer's wet dream is to become a measurbator.
What a completely silly sentence to write! There's no assumption here about what any or all photographers dream about! It's about telling photographers something that's true or lying to them. Suggesting that someone who is interested in facts about a technology is a measurebator is ridiculous and you're making yourself look foolish with such language. If you continue on this quest, I and I suspect others will have to ignore you as a troll. Why should anyone accept a flat out lie or misunderstanding as acceptable because it would make them a measurebator whatever that means.

If Ken writes that the distance from California to New York is 3 light years, we are to accept that as fact and if we instead use actual facts to get to the true distance, we're just stupid measurebator's? Come on, get a grip man.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9011



WWW
« Reply #157 on: June 09, 2013, 04:16:48 PM »
ReplyReply

If you choose RAW setting on your camera, you are initially going to end up with a WORSE initial result than with jpeg.

Bullcrap! Maybe you end up with raw's that are initially worse but I know how to use my raw converter and load presets and profiles so that's not the case.

Tell you what, you select Raw+JPEG, set the camera for Daylight and shoot under tungsten. Take both into a converter. Like that JPEG? Try 'fixing' it too.

Maybe you had to much to drink and/or smoke last night, you're making yourself look silly here.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #158 on: June 09, 2013, 04:22:57 PM »
ReplyReply

You can say the Holocaust is in your opinion minutia. You can say the Holocaust didn't happen. Not caring about history or considering it minutia is one thing. Saying the history didn't happen is flat out wrong. See the difference? Facts don't stop being facts because you or Ken's readers feel it's not worth grasping. There's no excuse for dismissing the Holocaust because you find it inconsequential and worse, defending someone who would write it didn't happen! 

You're overstepping a line here, and I strongly urge you to retract your analogy, take a deep breath and come back to this discussion when you have come to your senses. 

Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1917


WWW
« Reply #159 on: June 09, 2013, 04:23:18 PM »
ReplyReply

And this is where we fundamentally disagree.
I am sorry, but in my view, there is no middle way.
That you fail to accept that there is anything between the extremes of levels of knowledge says everything.

Anyone new to this thread needs to understand that photography has a range of levels of competence and understanding. It's quite possible to progress from complete novice to expert in a gradual process, it's not just one huge unattainable step to "rocket science" only
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad